If someone has philosophical doubt about the reliability of evidence based on our senses, they are being a ‘sceptic’. If knowledge requires justification and requires to be true – we are in trouble when we come up against a sceptic, because they will tell us that we don’t know what is true, because everything we sense could be false.
Remember that there is a difference between just doubting something and being a philosophical sceptic. For example during a football match there is a dispute over a goal: your friend is convinced the ball went over the line, but you are in doubt. During the reply the camera focuses close up on the line and in fact it was not a goal. Does the fact that you doubted the goal make you a sceptic? No.
If you could resolve an argument using evidence, you aren’t a sceptic. Sceptics don’t think we can truly know anything, because all evidence can be doubted.
Empiricism (a posteriori knowledge)
Some philosophers believe that it is the case that real, true knowledge is based on the experience we have of the world, that is to say that our senses, tricky and fallible though they are, do tell us about what is going on outside of our own minds. These philosophers are described as empiricists. Empirical knowledge is knowledge based on experience and this is also described as a posteriori knowledge, that is to say knowledge that comes after experience.
Rationalism (a priori knowledge)
Some philosophers don’t agree with that view, and think that even though we do learn about the world through our senses, more importantly we reason, and it is the operation of our reason that gives us the real truth about the world. These philosophers are known as rationalists because they think that reason is more important than experience. This is also described as a priori knowledge – that is, knowledge that comes before experience.
Sceptics, of course think that both these positions are in trouble, because we can’t rely on the senses, but we can’t rely upon reason either!
Scepticism
If someone has philosophical doubt about the reliability of evidence based on our senses, they are being a ‘sceptic’. If knowledge requires justification and requires to be true – we are in trouble when we come up against a sceptic, because they will tell us that we don’t know what is true, because everything we sense could be false.
Remember that there is a difference between just doubting something and being a philosophical sceptic. For example during a football match there is a dispute over a goal: your friend is convinced the ball went over the line, but you are in doubt. During the reply the camera focuses close up on the line and in fact it was not a goal. Does the fact that you doubted the goal make you a sceptic? No.
If you could resolve an argument using evidence, you aren’t a sceptic. Sceptics don’t think we can truly know anything, because all evidence can be doubted.
Empiricism (a posteriori knowledge)
Some philosophers believe that it is the case that real, true knowledge is based on the experience we have of the world, that is to say that our senses, tricky and fallible though they are, do tell us about what is going on outside of our own minds. These philosophers are described as empiricists. Empirical knowledge is knowledge based on experience and this is also described as a posteriori knowledge, that is to say knowledge that comes after experience.
Rationalism (a priori knowledge)
Some philosophers don’t agree with that view, and think that even though we do learn about the world through our senses, more importantly we reason, and it is the operation of our reason that gives us the real truth about the world. These philosophers are known as rationalists because they think that reason is more important than experience. This is also described as a priori knowledge – that is, knowledge that comes before experience.
Sceptics, of course think that both these positions are in trouble, because we can’t rely on the senses, but we can’t rely upon reason either!